Literature DB >> 22526191

[Sacropolpopexy - pro robotic].

C Hampel1, C Thomas, J W Thüroff, F Roos.   

Abstract

Abdominal sacrocolpopexy is a standard procedure for the correction of pelvic organ prolapse of all three compartments and can also be performed minimally invasively without compromising efficacy as by open techniques. In comparison to conventional laparoscopy robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy benefits from several technical stand-alone features, such as three-dimensional view, increased degrees of freedom through angulated instruments, tremor filter and up and down scaling of instrument movements. These advantages facilitate preparation of the vesicovaginal and rectovaginal spaces as well as suturing and reperitonealization, which should lead to decreased operation time and anesthesia time in extreme Trendelenburg position. Surgeon also benefit from the much more ergonomic working conditions of the da Vinci® system: however, comparative studies are rare and conclusions are preliminary. The German reimbursement system (DRG) does not adequately cover da Vinci expenses which, despite the obvious advantages represents the most significant obstacle in the propagation of this technique.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22526191     DOI: 10.1007/s00120-012-2892-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urologe A        ISSN: 0340-2592            Impact factor:   0.639


  10 in total

1.  Performing laparoscopic surgery is significantly more stressful for the surgeon than open surgery.

Authors:  R Berguer; W D Smith; Y H Chung
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  The effect of laparoscopic instrument working angle on surgeons' upper extremity workload.

Authors:  R Berguer; D L Forkey; W D Smith
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2001-06-12       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  An ergonomic evaluation of surgeons' axial skeletal and upper extremity movements during laparoscopic and open surgery.

Authors:  N T Nguyen; H S Ho; W D Smith; C Philipps; C Lewis; R M De Vera; R Berguer
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.565

4.  Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  John P Judd; Nazema Y Siddiqui; Jason C Barnett; Anthony G Visco; Laura J Havrilesky; Jennifer M Wu
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2010 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.137

5.  Surgeons' perceptions and injuries during and after urologic laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Ofer N Gofrit; Albert A Mikahail; Kevin C Zorn; Gregory P Zagaja; Gary D Steinberg; Arieh L Shalhav
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Hemodynamic perturbations during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in 45° Trendelenburg position.

Authors:  Melinda Lestar; Lars Gunnarsson; Lars Lagerstrand; Peter Wiklund; Suzanne Odeberg-Wernerman
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2011-01-13       Impact factor: 5.108

7.  Comparison of neuromuscular injuries to the surgeon during hand-assisted and standard laparoscopic urologic surgery.

Authors:  William K Johnston; Brent K Hollenbeck; J Stuart Wolf
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.942

8.  Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Marie Fidela R Paraiso; J Eric Jelovsek; Anna Frick; Chi Chung Grace Chen; Matthew D Barber
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 9.  Open retropubic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women.

Authors:  Marie Carmela M Lapitan; June D Cody; Adrian Grant
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2009-04-15

10.  Ergonomics, user comfort, and performance in standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  R H van der Schatte Olivier; C D P Van't Hullenaar; J P Ruurda; I A M J Broeders
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 4.584

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.